美国教育部宣布撤销适用于《民权法》第六章的"差异影响"规则 [1]。这一改变将民权执法标准从评估政策对特定学生群体造成的不成比例伤害，转变为仅认定故意歧视才构成违法 [1]。
根据数据，黑人学生面临更高的被停学、开除或转入替代性学校的风险 [1]。教育部助理民权秘书Kimberly Richey为新规辩护，称"学校将能够解决课堂问题，而不用担心联邦政府会滥用反歧视法律" [1]。
然而，此举遭到广泛反对。60个民权和教育倡导组织签署联署信表示反对 [1]。法律委员会民权项目主任Michael Pillera认为，这一改变将"移除对学生的关键保障" [1]。民权倡导者表示，这将削弱教育部在保护有色人种学生中的作用 [1]。
这一政策变化是在白宫去年的行政令指示教育部发布新的学校纪律指导意见的背景下进行的 [1]。平等就业机会委员会、司法部和能源部去年也撤销了各自的差异影响指导 [1]。
The U.S. Department of Education has rescinded the disparate impact rule, a longstanding tool for assessing whether school policies cause disproportionate harm to particular student groups. [1] Under the new regulation, only intentional discrimination can be deemed unlawful, marking a significant shift from decades of civil rights enforcement standards. [1]
The change narrows the scope of enforcement under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. [1] Previously, the disparate impact framework allowed the Education Department to challenge policies that, regardless of intent, resulted in unequal outcomes for students of color. Data has shown that Black students face disproportionately high rates of suspension, expulsion, and placement in alternative schools. [1]
The rescission follows a White House executive order issued last year that instructed the Education Department to issue new school discipline guidance. [1] The move mirrors broader action across federal agencies: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Justice, and Department of Energy similarly rescinded their own disparate impact guidance last year. [1]
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey defended the decision, stating: "Schools will be able to address classroom issues without worrying that the federal government will misuse civil rights laws." [1] However, Michael Pillera, director of the Civil Rights-Education Project at the Lawyers' Committee, characterized the change as removing "critical safeguards for students." [1]
Civil rights advocates have strongly opposed the rescission. Sixty civil rights and education advocacy organizations signed a joint letter against the action, arguing that it will weaken the Education Department's ability to protect students of color. [1]